Kent County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment; CA (Beldam LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ, Otton LJ) 29 April 1997.
Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, which permitted as development the deposit of waste materials from industrial process defined as the breaking up or demolition of any article, was wide enough to cover waste from the demolition of walls, buildings, etc and the breaking up of roads, driveways and paths. The company had not, therefore, acted in breach of its planning consent by depositing such waste on a site of outstanding natural beauty.
Richard Glover (Council Solicitor) for the appellant; Nathalie Lieven (Treasury Solicitor) for the first respondent; Keith Lindblom QC and Philip Petchey (Knocker & Foskett, Sevenoaks) for the second respondent.
R v Pitt; CA Cr Div (McCowan LJ, Ognall J, Sedley J) 29 April 1997.
Although courts quite properly took the view that offences committed with knives had to be dealt with very severely, where a man protecting his wife and children had armed himself before confronting and killing the victim, who had arrived outside his house with his friends, drunk and shouting, a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment was appropriate.
Roderick Denyer (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.
R v Lard; CA Cr Div (Lord Bingham CJ, Latham J, Poole J) 24 April 1997.
A judge in sentencing a defendant who had pleaded guilty to having an imitation firearm with intent to commit an offence to 3 years' imprisonment, had approached the sentencing exercise correctly. However, the sentence had not adequately reflected the mitigating features of the case, and would be reduced to 2 years' imprisonment.
Nicholas Paul (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.
BMW (GB) Ltd v Commrs of Customs & Excise; QBD Crown Office List (Keene J) 24 April 1997.
The crucial characteristic of the term "business entertainment" in art 5 of the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 was that such entertainment was provided to a recipient free of charge, whether or not the provider received money from elsewhere. The provider was not, therefore, entitled to credit for VAT on supplies made to the recipient.
Keith Prosser QC (Clarks, Reading) for the taxpayer; Alison Foster (C&E Solicitor) for Customs & Excise.
Customs & Excise v Ferrero UK Ltd; CA (Lord Woolf MR, Hutchison LJ, Mummery LJ) 6 May 1997.
RSC, O 55 r 7(5) did not give the court hearing an appeal from the VAT tribunal power to remit a case to a different tribunal without considering the merits and quashing the decision appealed against. In any event, the question whether a product was a biscuit (zero- rated) or confectionery (standard-rated) was a question of fact and degree for the VAT tribunal to decide.
David Ewart (Taylor Joynson Garrett) for the taxpayer; Melanie Hall (C&E Solicitor) for Customs & Excise.
Cunningham v Birmingham City Council; QBD Div Ct (Pill LJ, Astill J); 6 May 1997.
The proper test to apply, in assessing whether or not premises were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health under s 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, was an objective one. There was, therefore, no duty as such to consider the particular health requirements of the occupier.
Richard Gordon QC, Rod Henderson (McGrath & Co, Birmingham) for the appellant; James Findlay (Council Solicitor) for the respondents.Reuse content